I did some asking around and found out that the state of Montana had a similar bill passed by the people in November of last year.

The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the initiative then ruled that the initiative was unconstitutional because there were two provisions in the bill that were not directly related to one another. This is similar to I-695, because it is not a thought through initiative it may loose on all sides. Had it been only lowering car tabs or just requirments of public vote for funding approval it might have a better chance.

I-695 are has two different issues, while one protects the other they do not have a similar correlation, one is a vote one is a fee. This may be only a technicality, and depending on the Washington State constitution it may last, it may die. When my congressman isn't to busy to return my e-mails I will let you know what I find. We all may be waiting a while.

-- ac (calavo@hotmail.com), October 22, 1999

Answers

By all means, let us know what your "congressman" has to say about the issue of constitutionality.

The anti's are fighting this initiative with everything they can muster. IMO, if they believed it to be unconstitutional, they would have saved their money for other battles... after all, why bother fighting an initiative that's only going to be tossed anyway? What's the point?

They're afraid. They're very afraid.

And, here's a bulletin: This initiative will not go away, regardless if it fails to make it past the Supreme Court. It will come back, again and again, until MAJOR relief is provided, and the authority to allow the People to decide on tax and fee increases becomes law.

You will note that NONE of the governor's idiotic handling of this initiative even begins to address the most popular aspect of it: the right of the people to vote on tax/fee increases.

That type of arrogance has provided Tim with more support among the people then any amount of money he could have raised.

Will this hit the courts? No doubt.

Is it unconstitutional? Hundreds of thousands are being spent as the anti's use the most modern media available to lie, mislead, and spread fear among the population... all the while without providing ANY substantive alternative... practically guaranteeing passage.

Strange behavoir on the part of such a large group of individuals who believe this to be unconstitutional.

As far as this goes... the opposition really has only two choices: They can accept this initiative now... or they can accept it later. But accept it they will, because, frankly, they have no choice.

Westin

"The Japanese surrendered on the 'bow' (he pronounced it like 'bow ' tie) of the 'aircraft carrier' (instead of the battleship) Missouri."

VP Al Gore (Source: from George Putnam on KIEV radio in Glendale California)

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 22, 1999.

Fear and Terror!

That's all the opposition has left! They have squandared their credibility.

California's Prop 13 was an initiative to CONTROL taxes. It rolled back property taxes, limited assessed valuation, and required VOTER APPROVAL for TAX INCREASES. Opponents fought prop 13 in the courts because California also has single subject requirements for initiatives. The supreme court upheld prop 13.

If you read I-695 it is "AN ACT Relating to limiting taxation by: limiting excessive license tab fees; limiting tax increases by requiring voter approval; repealing existing licensing fees.."

So there you have it prop 13 Controlled taxation and I-695 limits taxation. Both have a single subject.

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), October 23, 1999.

Monte:

Sorry to pop your bubble, but Prop 13 was a constitutional amendment. Once passed, it became a part of the constitution, so it could not be challenged on the same constitutional grounds as I-695. The court challenges were interpretation issues about how to reconcile the provisions of the constitution. Different issue entirely.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 23, 1999.

Westin:

As for what parts, if any, are unconstitutional; I have seen lists of issues that can and will be challenged, but that is always uncertain. Courts tend to uphold provisions enacted by the people, if they can. You are right, we who are opposed to 695 are afraid of what will happen in this state if it is passed and upheld in court. Very afraid of the damage it will do, the problems it will cause, and the waste of public time and money to put things right.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 23, 1999.